ORDER Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On 25.11.1997, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewari, passed an award against the petitioner for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 33,070/- along with interest. On appeal, the Deputy Registrar held that the petitioner was liable for an amount of Rs. 8,730/- out of the principal amount of Rs. 26,190/-. The remaining amount viz. Rs. 17,460/- had to be paid by Randhir Singh-Salesman. Both were held liable to pay interest @ 16%. Randhir Singh-respondent No. 5 filed a revision petition. It was accepted by the Secretary vide order dated 15.7.1999. Copies of the three orders have been produced as Annexures P.1, P.2 and P.3 respectively. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Revisional Authority and prays that it be quashed. 3. Mr. J.V. Yadav, counsel for the petitioner contends that the order as passed by the Appellate Authority had been accepted by the Society. It was in conformity with the evidence on the file. It was legal and proper. The Revisional Authority has interfered with the order without even coming to a conclusion that the order passed by the Appellate Authority lacked propriety or was otherwise illegal. He has further submitted that respondent No. 5 was the Salesman. He had to sell the articles and recover the amount. The amount had then to be deposited in the Bank. The account had to be submitted to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner had failed to inform the higher authorities, the burden of making the deposit of sale-proceeds and maintaining the account was of respondent No. 5. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, counsel for the respondent No. 5 has, contended that the Revisional Authority has committed no illegality in setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. 5. No one is present on behalf of the Society. Even the record of the Society has not been produced before the Court. Still further, it has not been disputed that the 5th respondent was working as the Salesman. The authority to sell the articles entrusted to the Salesman vested with him only. He had to collect the money and deposit it. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has not been able to show that the sale-proceeds were either deposited with the petitioner or with the Bank. The authority to sell the articles entrusted to the Salesman vested with him only. He had to collect the money and deposit it. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has not been able to show that the sale-proceeds were either deposited with the petitioner or with the Bank. Without proving entrustment, the petitioner could not have been held liable for the payment of the money. In any event, even the Revisional Authority has not come to a positive finding that the order passed by the Appellate Authority was illegal or improper as envisaged under Section 115 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. 6. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy the order passed by the Revisional Authority (Annexure P.3) is set aside. The case is remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Revisional Authority on 11.3.2002. 7. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Petition allowed.